[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990125 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 05:12:16 -0500
Subject: Warks - E5221 or BOAT?
Has anyone considered submitting a BOAT application for this road?
Due to the long River section it might be quite useful in more ways than
one. We know the L/O for the important section, if HA wanted it extended to
the main road to South, they can extend it.
Another reason why HA could not go for 116, or for Beak to close it under
116 until the DMMO has been dealt with in 2053, or so.....
Which side of the river/road does one drive on? If the left it could cause
consternation to navigation. Do you need Red / Green lights on port &
starboard? Are the angling clubs and Scuba divers etc consultees for a
BOAT DMMO application? :-)
Are boats part of the 'All Traffic' on BOATs? How do they deviate round
obstructions?
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990125 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 07:04:26 EST
Subject: Re: ICQ
In a message dated 23 : 01 : 99 12:30 GMT Standard Time, Elwyn@ey-
eg.demon.co.uk writes:
<< If you have ICQ nos, can you let me know what they are?
Cheers
Elwyn
LR S3 '72 (Very Dented) Lightweight. [47 FL 06]
"Sub Aerodynamic Green Brick" ICQ: 17087824. >>
Whatever they are, you will be able to collect them from our messages, as
above. Unless, of course, not all sender/receiver combinations reveal the
number.
But you might have put it into your signature deliberately, I suppose.
Infernal Campaign Quotient?
Internecine Collective Querulousness?
Iliac Colonic Quiddity?
I have a few IRQs spare, I think - should I e-mail you one?
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990125 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 07:04:20 EST
Subject: Copiong with lying witness or advocates
A further thought on the matter of lies or false claims in the press -
One counter-ploy could be to amass a collection of these, with evidence
showing the source of the mis-information, and background to show that there
was a deliberate attempt to ferment opposition by deceit. Add to that,
evidence that the mendacious person(s) were benefitting by charging for their
services, and you have a powerful tool.
In cross examination, it is entirely proper to put to the Inquiry evidence
that a witness has been part of the fermenting process, has lied elsewhere,
etc, and therefore is not reliable as a witness. And similarly if the liar is
not a witness, but you can get witnesses to admit that they were advised by X,
who you show to be a habitual liar, and that their case was put together with
he assistance of a liar. I suspect that once an advocate had been discredited
in this way, his effectiveness would diminish.
But, I do not think Inspectors would like you doing it before them, as it
would look like a vindictive personalisation. So possibly you need to write to
PINS, Bristol, saying you have such evidence, and asking how best to ensure
that the Inquiry was not misled in the same way as is shown in your evidence.
Comments please.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990125 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 07:04:27 EST
Subject: Re: Maintenance
In a message dated 23 : 01 : 99 12:43 GMT Standard Time,
bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk writes:
<< *The one exception seems to be W&CA81 s54 (7) which specifically
states that a RUPP reclassified as a BOAT does not need to be made
suitable for vehicular traffic. >>
What it says applies to the consequence of a RUPP > BOAT decision. It does not
remove any existing (but ignored or unknown) duty to maintain 'for the normal
traffic of the district'. There is general belief in HAs that BOATS 'are not
required to be maintained for vehicles' but I do not believe that is true.
Except, of course, for all those BOATs which became carriageways by deemed
dedication after the 1835 Act. (ie not many?)
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990125 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 07:04:18 EST
Subject: Re: BOAT & Nettlecombe
In a message dated 22 : 01 : 99 02:24 GMT Standard Time,
davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk writes:
<< > I would argue that bicycle use confirms CW, and not BW, but you can take
a
> different view. The matter is not clear.
But surely that doubt could be removed by using a tricycle or
unicycle? >>
Yes, of course. But, (and never mind the relative difficulty of finding either
as comparted with a push bike,) the problem related to showing the BOAT
definition was met in full on a route not usable by horses (because of cattle
grids). So I was saying that it could be argued that use by bicycles is 'use
as a bridleway is used'. I do not think the argument is fully watertight, but
the Inspector who decides only has a fortnights training so might be
convinced.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990125 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 07:13:18 EST
Subject: Re: Warks - E5221 or BOAT?
In a message dated 24 : 01 : 99 10:13 GMT Standard Time, Byway@Compuserve.com
writes:
<< Has anyone considered submitting a BOAT application for this road? >>
Yes, and it may be useful to get something in. Local knowledge via the helpful
LO should reveal the relevant LO details, althouth the WCC response was 'No we
do not know who owns the route'. This did not prevent them (WCC) saying in
their consulation to LOs affected, that if closed, the route would become the
property of adjacent owners.
I consider this to be a bribe to say yes, and ultra vires if they do not know
who owns anyway. The land is only relieved of highway, its ownership does not
change. Even if the HA owns it. But then it can be fenced off and absorbed by
'adverse possession' - become the property of the fencer-off after 12 years
without challenge. Such fencing does not work if it is a highway, as the fence
is an unlawful obstruction, and is caught be RvA.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990125 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 11:52:02 EST
Subject: Re: Policies - Herefordshire
Herefordshire Unitary Authority
24.1.99
Town Hall, Hereford
HR1 2PJ
For the attention of -
Gareth Randall, Esq, Highways; and
Duncan Forbes, Esq, Legal Dept
Dear Sirs
Co-operative Management of Unsurfaced Roads in Herefordshire
Thank you for agreeing to meet with Chris Marsden and me to discuss this
topic. I was encouraged by your responses to our concerns, and to our offers
to help in the processes of co-operative management of these important
recreational resources.
In particular, I hope I was correct to detect a 'wind of change' in attitudes
to problems raised by users, in a part of the country which has not, until
now, been noted for its helpful attitudes to recreational motoring.
I understand that Chris is writing to you in confirmation of the position on
his specific complaints, many of which may have been resolved last Friday. I
hope that I can concentrate on the more general questions, and I believe it
will be useful to summarise here my understanding of the points of agreement
-
1. Information and Consultation.
We discussed the current exaggerated concerns around Upper Lye, and the
problems caused when locals residents seek to resolve their concerns in
unhelpful ways. To assist with consultation and information flow, HUA would
use the respondent appointed by LARA (for the ACU as 'prescribed body' under
WLCA81) as the first contact for all recreational and sporting motoring users,
for all proposals affecting such use, and all reports of concerns. The same
contact would be used by all Departments involved in changes to the highway
and rights of way network (Highways, RoW, Planning, Leisure, Legal, etc).
Currently, this role is filled by Geoff Brookes, Church Lane, Orleton, Ludlow
SY8 4HU - 01568 780326.
2. Current Information.
To assist in co-operation, you kindly supplied me with a copy of the current
HUA 'List of Streets' map, and a printout listing route numbers you describe
as 'undriveable' - ie not used by ordinary car drivers for travel. You
acknowledged that there may be other routes not currently on this 'List of
Streets' which are also legally open to vehicles, (but which may not be
maintainable by HUA), including BOATs. You also advised that there are records
within the Highways section showing routes which had been recorded before the
1974 County changes, and which were no longer shown on the List. Together,
these form a useful network for recreation which is currently underused and
undervalued, and which has previously been misunderstood. We agreed that it
would not be helpful to give this information wide circulation until an
assessment of sustainability had been carried out. To assist with this co-
operation, you agreed to ensure that little used routes would be safeguarded
for potential future use by the public, avoiding the 'threat' posed by HA80
s116 when there are low levels of use of these potentially important
resources.
3. Management Policy.
I left with you copies of a recent agreement between the Welsh Sports Council
and the Countryside Council for Wales, for the management of recreational
resources (including roads). This sets out a policy in which voluntary agreed
measures are used in preference to imposed restrictions or compulsion. You
agreed to discuss it with colleagues with a view to its adoption as HUA
policy.
4. Signposting and Waymarking.
We agreed that while there is no requirement to sign unclassified roads, the
use of red waymark arrows (as recommended by the Countryside Commission) where
routes cross, and where confusion is possible (at farmyards, for example)
would be encouraged to enable users to be sure of status and avoid trespass,
and to assist in resolving perceived conflict. LARA volunteers can assist with
the erection and maintenance of such signing. We also agreed that signs that
are too obvious can be unhelpful to user-management, can be eyesores in deep
countryside, and present easy targets for theft.
5. Publication of a Map of Sustainable Routes.
We agreed that for visitors to Herefordshire seeking unsurfaced roads, an
'official' map could usefully be available showing those routes which they
should find passable without finding or creating problems. This would follow a
survey to ensure that no problem routes were included, and would be subject to
annual review to ensure its currency. The timescale for production of such
mapping would depend on surveys of sustainability (which LARA members could
undertake) and on the full introduction of GIS computer systems by the
Authority.
6. Natural or accidental obstructions, drainage problems, etc.
We agreed that you would check the insurance position for LARA (and other
voluntary) workers, adding volunteers to your own insurance scheme if
possible, and you would encourage the use of volunteers to resolve non-
deliberate obstructions and similar problems whenever possible. The
possibility of training or certifying volunteers to assist in a supervisory
role would also be investigated.
7. Deliberate obstructions.
We all recognise that in political terms these are more difficult to resolve
than natural or accidental obstructions, and that abatement by users can lead
to hardened attitudes and entrenched positions on both 'sides'. Therefore,
there is a need for prompt action by the Authority. Should action not be taken
promptly, clear messages are sent out to obstructers - that they can get away
with it, and to users - that abatement is the only alternative to years of
frustration. Your policy will be to ensure that you will respond to any
deliberate obstructions promptly by taking assertive action, and reporting
progress to any user reporting the problem.
8. Gates on Carriageways.
We agreed that while gates across roads may not be lawful, they can help to
resolve stock management problems. In order to assist with stock management
(but not otherwise) and to allow users to be sure that gates on roads are not
intended to deceive users or deny rights, you will encourage the use of red
waymark arrows on all such gates. LARA members will be asked to take a
pragmatic view of such gates, as a gesture of co-operation with the land-
owning community. On the other hand, any gate which was not needed for stock,
was difficult to operate, or which was wired up, or padlocked, would be
treated (by HUA and LARA) as an obstruction.
9. Voluntary Restraint and similar measures.
I left with you copies of the LARA report on the Hierarchy of Trail Routes in
the Lake District, which includes various options for the co-operative
management of recreational motoring resources. We agreed that Herefordshire
lacked both the pressures, and the resources, of a major National Park, and
that a full-blown 'Hierarchy' scheme may not be appropriate here. However, the
ideas within the report would be studied within the Authority with a view to
adoption as joint LARA-HUA measures wherever they were seen to be relevant.
10. Current Problems Arising from Motoring Use.
We were pleased to learn that on unsurfaced roads throughout the Herefordshire
Authority area there are no known problems attributed to recreational
motoring. We look forward to helping the Authority to resolve any concerns
which may be reported, and we are confident that our recent meeting, and
attention to the points set out above, will help to ensure that few such
concerns arise.
A further meeting date was not agreed, but further liaison was felt to be
necessary during 1999. We look forward to making progress here, and I remind
you that I can usually respond at fairly short notice, day, evening, or
weekend, should that become necessary.
Yours sincerely
Tim Stevens
LARA motor recreation development officer
[TRS: Heref01.doc]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990125 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Chris Marsden" <byway@northhereford.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 17:18:17 -0000
Subject: Upper Lye
Had a report this afternoon from the top end of Leysfield Rd, Upper Lye.
The first 300 yards or so carry a Permissive path, the Mortimers Trail from
Ludlow to Knighton (loop), for which the (non) landowner is paid for the
footpath over the public carriageway. Not on DM.
The first 10ft gate is locked, stile beside it.
2nd gate (CC) 5ft, also chained and padlocked, with stile beside it. The
bottom 10 ft, 2m high, solid gate is still padlocked.
The notice on the top gate says, handwritten:- "Think twice before you drive
down this ancient pathway all eyes of the civilised world are on you, you
will be judged as vandals for this desecration"
This is the guy that dunlopillock is advising.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990125 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Chris Marsden" <byway@northhereford.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 17:05:58 -0000
Subject: Re: Warks - E5221 or BOAT?
There is less need to submit for the southern end, or the river bed, as they
are less at risk. Assuming the 116 will fail, which it will so long as we
keep the pressure on, and it has not been stolen. The section from the
north down to the entrance to Grey Mill Cottage serves two houses, and is a
'D' road, up (I believe), to that point. Thus the only section that needs
a BOAT application in is between those two points. About 100m. Clearly it
can not succeed, under GL's silly law, but it could be abated, or a M/cycle,
or pedal cycle with the two casters attached under the seat, (stabilisers,
see 4 wheelers *can* use that section, Old Boy!).
CC would then have to consider whether to make the rest of the route up to
BOAT, or risk being criticised and also run the risk to have a 2nd PI. See
Eyre v new Forest, etc.
At Upper Lye, appplicant only put in for BOAT for the obstructed road. That
terminated on a white. They asked him to submit BOAT app for that. He
refused. They had info, so they had to make order for that as well.
The L/O can be addressed as The Parish Council and, in the event they are
not, C/O the owner or Occupier, Grey Mill Cottage, Grey Mill Lane, Alcester
Road, Wootton Wawen, Solihull, West Midlands, B95 6HL.
So any volunteers?
See draft below :-)
Chris
:
:<< Has anyone considered submitting a BOAT application for this road? >>
:Yes, and it may be useful to get something in. Local knowledge via the
helpful
Application for modification order
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
Definitive map and statement for the county of Warwickshire.
Of: Warwickshire County Council, Shire Hall, Warwick. CV34 4RR
I, Christopher Marsden, of Orleton Manor, Orleton, in the county of
Herefordshire, hereby apply for an order under section 53(2) of the Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981 modifying the definitive map and state-ment for the
county of Wawrickshire by adding a Byway Open to All Traffic from the bank
of the River Alne (grid reference SP 145 614), and to a point adjacent to
Grey Mill Cottage (grid reference SP 145 615).
I attach a copy of the following documentary evidence in support of this
application:
1st Edition OS 25" map.
Dated 25th Jan 1999 Signed
___________________________
Form of notice to landowners and occupiers
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
Definitive map and statement for the county of Warwickshire.
Of: c/o Grey Mill Cottage, Grey Mill Lane, Alcester
Road, Wootton Wawen, Solihull, West Midlands, B95 6HL.
Notice is hereby given that on 25th January 1999 I, Christopher Marsden, of
Orleton Manor, Orleton, in the county of Herefordshire, made application to
the Wawrickshire County Council, Shire Hall, Warwick. CV34 4RR that the
definitive map and statement for the county of Warwickshire be modified by
adding a Byway Open to All Traffic, between the bank of the River Alne (grid
reference SP 145 614), and to a point adjacent to Grey Mill Cottage (grid
reference SP 145 615).
Dated 25th Jan 1999 Signed
_____________________________
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
Definitive map and statement for the county of Warwickshire.
Certificate of service of notice of application for modification order
Of: Warwickshire County Council, Shire Hall, Warwick. CV34 4RR
I, Christopher Marsden, of Orleton Manor, Orleton, in the county of
Herefordshire, hereby certify that the requirements of paragraph 2 of
Schedule 14 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 have been complied with
in connection with my application to you dated 25th January 1999 for the
modification of the definitive map and statement for the county of
Warickshire, by the addition of a Byway Open to All Traffic from from the
bank of the River Alne (grid reference SP 145 614), and to a point adjacent
to Grey Mill Cottage (grid reference SP 145 615).
Dated 25th Jan 1999 Signed
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990125 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:33:50 -0500
Subject: Comparison
A man went for a brian transplant and was given the choice of two brians a
RoW officer's for £ 10,000 or a politician's for £ 20,000.
"Does that mean the politician's brain is better?"
"Not really" said the surgeon, "But the polictician's has never been used".
cj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990125 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 17:09:04 -0000
Subject: Re: Copiong with lying witness or advocates
The first hurdle is recognising the lie. Ensure that the full text of
letters or document relied upon is put before the Inquiry. Many will read
selectively from a County letter or other document. Demand that the entire
letter be read and ensure that it related to the way in question (a Plumbe
trick was to selectively quote).
Inspectors will stop character assassination at Inquiry. Interesting
thread.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990125 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Michael Taylor <mikeandchris.taylor@virgin.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 18:54:21 +0000
Subject: Re Comparison
Hi folks,
So now we know, it is better to have a brian than a brain!
funnily enough I know one or two brians who have brains as well, but no
brains who also have brians.
cheers,Mike.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990125 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 19:17:23 +0000
Subject: More West Berks volutary restraints
This afternoon while out for my Sunday constitutional I came across two
new West Berks Council voluntary restraint notices dated January 1999.
They request 4x4 users not proceed beyond the notice 'To prevent further
surface damage'. One sign refers to RUPP 8, Catmore (SU459803). The
other to Old Street, Byway 7, Catmore (same NGR).
It will come as no surprise to many that Catmore is the Lord High
Gleamer's home parish.
It will also come as no surprise that I found evidence of agricultural
use on RUPP 8. A very nice set of tractor tyre marks that came out of
the lane and turned left onto Old Street past the other VR sign and off
in the direction of Red Lane Barn (SU467796). There was little evidence
of recent use by 4x4's just trail bikes and tractors on RUPP 8. One
flat grassy section showed no parallel wheel tracks at all, just random
bike tracks. It must be pointed out that Old Street is in fact tarmac
up to its turn off to Red LaneBarn (SU458804 to 464796).
I have photographed VR signs and the tractor tracks. The light was,
however, poor.
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990125 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] Received: from
arl-img-10.compuserve.com (arl-img-10.compuserve.com [149.174.217.140])
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] by
arl-img-10.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.17) id OAA26792
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990125 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 14:53:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Policies - Herefordshire
> Herefordshire Unitary Authority
> 24.1.99
> Town Hall, Hereford
> HR1 2PJ
Tim,
An excellent report thank you.
I do not know where you got the address from, it may be the pre 1/4/98 map,
but the address on Duncan's card is :-
(& I suspect this is the current address)
Brockington
35 Hafod Rd
Hereford
HR1 1SH
dforbes@herefordshire.gov.uk
and it is not a U. A., but is officially shortened to Hereford Council.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990125 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 18:38:43 EST
Subject: Re: Policies - Herefordshire
In a message dated 24 : 01 : 99 07:56 GMT Standard Time, Byway@Compuserve.com
writes:
<< I do not know where you got the address from, >>
Thanks for the update, Chris. My info came from The Councils Handbook, 1999
edition, which has Worcs as County but Herefords as UA. I will ring them
before posting.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990125 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 18:49:30 -0000
Subject: Re: Upper Lye
<<The notice on the top gate says, handwritten:- "Think twice before you
drive
down this ancient pathway all eyes of the civilised world are on you, you
will be judged as vandals for this desecration">>
Could you make a replacement:
"Think twice before you drive down this ancient pathway all eyes of the
criminal world are on you, you will be judged as protectors of the public's
rights"
Let me know if this makes it to the list Chris ol'chap.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990125 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 99 02:45 GMT0
Subject: Re: More West Berks volutary restraints
Hiya
<<<<<This afternoon while out for my Sunday constitutional I came across
twonew West Berks Council voluntary restraint notices dated January 1999.
They request 4x4 users not proceed beyond the notice 'To prevent further
surface damage'. One sign refers to RUPP 8, Catmore (SU459803). The
other to Old Street, Byway 7, Catmore (same NGR).>>>>>
Babties VR signs have already been the subject of correspondence twixt me
and Rhoda Two-face, and Tim Stevens and RB
<<<<It will come as no surprise to many that Catmore is the Lord High
Gleamer's home parish.>>>>
I think that the correlation between houses, big and signs, babtie will be
mentioned.
<<<< a chap fitting DG's description was was the garden. Our eyes met
as he stared at me from under his cap. I should have waved!>>>>
No, you should have kicked him in the balls and said that your name was
Michael Dyer -----I have witnesses to say where I was, he didnt
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990125 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 18 lines 1010 [forwarded 16 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 705 [content 604 forwarded 16 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 990125 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]